3 ms·
I'd bet that someone in either the legislature or the prison system is getting some "consideration" from the providers of these "free" tablets. Nobody would agr
by rustcharm 8y ago
I'd bet that someone in either the legislature or the prison system is getting some "consideration" from the providers of these "free" tablets. Nobody would agree to allow these things otherwise.
I don't think Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R) is being stupid when he's asking "why can't we get "free" tablets for students, too?" I think he's in on it. That's the simplest answer.
- hapless 8y agoGiven that this is Albany we are talking about, you know with certainty that someone is receiving "consideration." Probably _several_ someones. Steve Hawley probably didn't get his beak wet, and it annoys him. Which is why he dares to ask any questions at all.
- gowld 8y agoWhat's corrupt about asking for children to be treated as well as prisoners, or to sarcastically argue by contradiction? Anyway, you could reread the article to remind yourself that the question in the headline is answered in the article. The tablets are subsidized by software and services offered through the device, like an Amazon Fire. (But the services are terrible.) This is simply a case of a private company shifting costs from the government budget to oppressed and exploited citizens. No "personal" corruption is necessary to explain the situation.